History
  • No items yet
midpage
531 B.R. 814
Bankr. N.D. Cal.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Howrey LLP dissolved in 2011 after partners left and the firm collapsed.
  • Eight law firms hired former Howrey partners to represent former Howrey clients, creating post-dissolution matters and potential profits for those firms.
  • The trustee sued the eight firms to recover profits from work on client matters taken by ex-partners.
  • Bankruptcy court held: post-dissolution profits could be pursued as fraudulent transfers and misappropriated unfinished business; pre-dissolution profits could be pursued via unjust enrichment.
  • DC Court of Appeals has not directly addressed whether client matters are partnership property; the court looked to other jurisdictions for guidance.
  • Court holds that post-dissolution matters are presumptively new matters not belonging to Howrey and that pre-dissolution unjust enrichment claims fail; motions to dismiss granted with prejudice.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Post-dissolution profits belong to the dissolved firm? trustee contends profits are Howrey property under unfinished business. firms argue new, third-party matters not subject to partnership property. Yes; post-dissolution claims dismissed.
Pre-dissolution unjust enrichment viable? trustee seeks recovery where Howrey conferred benefits via pre-dissolution matters. unjust enrichment requires plaintiff confer benefit; no such benefit by Howrey. No; pre-dissolution unjust enrichment claims dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

  • Beckman v. Farmer, 579 A.2d 618 (D.C. 1990) (unfinished business rule limits; continuity of engagement matters)
  • Young v. Delaney, 647 A.2d 784 (D.C. 1994) (continuation of business; client matters may be assets; context-specific)
  • In re Thelen LLP, 24 N.Y.3d 16 (N.Y. 2014) (client matters belong to client, not firm; not partnership property)
  • Heller Ehrman LLP v. Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, 527 B.R. 24 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (unfinished business doctrine not broad enough to justify claims)
  • Thelen LLP, 762 F.3d 157, 762 F.3d 157 (9th Cir. 2014) (federal appellate view aligning with Thelen interpretation)
  • News World Communications, Inc. v. Thompsen, 878 A.2d 1218 (D.C. 2005) (unjust enrichment elements; plaintiff must confer benefit)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Hogan Lovells US LLP v. Howrey LLP
Court Name: United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California
Date Published: Jun 3, 2015
Citations: 531 B.R. 814; 2015 WL 3505518; Case Nos. 14-cv-04882-JD, 14-cv-04883-JD, 14-cv-04884-JD, 14-cv-04885-JD, 14-cv-04886-JD, 14-CV-04887-JD, 14-cv-04888-JD, 14-cv-04889-JD
Docket Number: Case Nos. 14-cv-04882-JD, 14-cv-04883-JD, 14-cv-04884-JD, 14-cv-04885-JD, 14-cv-04886-JD, 14-CV-04887-JD, 14-cv-04888-JD, 14-cv-04889-JD
Court Abbreviation: Bankr. N.D. Cal.
Log In
    Hogan Lovells US LLP v. Howrey LLP, 531 B.R. 814